Thursday, September 8, 2011

Does Huntsman believe in evolution?

Once again politicians are discussing evolution, this time at the Republican presidential debate Wednesday night held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Los Angeles exurb Simi Valley. The comments, made by moderate Jon Huntsman, former Utah Governor and US Ambassador to the PRC, seemed to be more about politics than science, but perhaps not. Here is what Huntsman had to say:

Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I’m saying is that in order for the Republican party to win, we can’t run from science, … And by making comments that basically don’t reflect the reality of the situation, we turn people off.

Huntsman is a politician, and speaking here qua politician his comments make some sense. Huntsman is merely pointing out that, in his view, Republicans need to acknowledge and respect the leading scientific opinions. Otherwise they risk losing votes. In other words, it seems he is talking about political strategy, not scientific realism.

There is of course the philosophical and ethical question that politicians always face. Should politicians “sell out” for votes? How many lies and absurdities should one tolerate to gain office?

But beyond this, one wonders if Huntsman’s remarks go beyond political gamesmanship. When the Palo Alto High dropout speaks of “the science of evolution” it almost sounds as though he is speaking as an evolutionary realist who believes evolution is true, or approximately true.

Adding to this speculation, Huntsman speaks of “the reality of the situation.” Does he mean the political reality of the situation, or the scientific reality of the situation?

Unfortunately Huntsman has never had the question put directly to him: Does he believe evolution is a fact?

Paying homage to evolution for political reasons, as low as that may seem, is an understandable political strategy. Believing in the absurd religious theory that the world spontaneously arose, is quite another.

9 comments:

How is it that you've never learned to avoid making even the most basic misconception of evolution?

The Theory of Evolution is a theory of biology. It is concerned solely with how life on Earth develops. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is asinine, though common, for critics to say ToE says anything at all about the beginning of the universe, cosmology, or even of the origin of life. It doesn't.

It says nothing about how the world arose, let alone that it did so 'spontaneously'. You will never earn the ear of anyone who matters unless you can at least demonstrate you have the slightest awareness of what you are talking about. You demonstrate that your knowledge of ToE would embarrass a high school student (again).

Just my guess on this one, but it would probably be safe to say that Huntsman probably lost more votes, than gained votes due to this comment. The folks that would be likely to vote for Huntsman are probably on the skeptical side of big establishment science dictating what we all should believe.

It's like a litmus test question to filter out folks that "cling to guns and religion" from the elites. The elites who cling to climate change and evolutionary junk science in order to control the world are destroying jobs, human dignity, and bankrupting nations. They said, 'vote for us and we'll turn back the rising of the oceans'. Most people now would just be glad if the price of gasoline would stop rising.

The elites who proudly endorsed junk science are running the show and everyone is finding out that their policies don't work. So there will be a backlash against big government and big science trying to dictate what everyone should believe. The elites will find out that there are still too many people who are not cheese eating surrender monkey's.

CH:There is of course the philosophical and ethical question that politicians always face. Should politicians “sell out” for votes? How many lies and absurdities should one tolerate to gain office?

What's particularly marvelous about this sort of post is how Cornelius makes statements as if they couldn't possibly be put on the the other foot.

"Obviously", the person selling out here is Huntsman. To think other words in absurd. Yet, we could just as easily say that Perry tolerates lies and misrepresentations to appease the status quo in the republican party and maintain his own personal religious beliefs.

Also, notice how Perry dodges the question regarding which particular scientists disagree about global warming not just once but twice, when the moderator specifically brings it again since Perry avoided it the first time. It's as if Perry thinks that merely any disagreement by scientists is somehow a justification for his position. The details of which particular scientists are disagreeing and the specific nature of that disagreement is apparently irrelevant.

Why would anyone expect absolutely 100% agreement every single detail in any field of science? In fact, 100% agreement at this level would likely indicate something is rather amiss. This is because better answers should always lead to better questions, etc., and not everyone will always initially conjecture the same explanations to for these better questions.

Again, this sort of assumption makes the mistake that it's even possible to generalize observations to create theories, which would lead to initial consensus among scientists.

In other words, if one has a rudimentarily understanding of how knowledge is created, this is clearly an impossible criteria to meet. It's merely trotted out in cases like this.

It's like a litmus test question to filter out folks that "cling to guns and religion" from the elites. The elites who cling to climate change and evolutionary junk science in order to control the world are destroying jobs, human dignity, and bankrupting nations. They said, 'vote for us and we'll turn back the rising of the oceans'. Most people now would just be glad if the price of gasoline would stop rising.

The elites who proudly endorsed junk science are running the show and everyone is finding out that their policies don't work. So there will be a backlash against big government and big science trying to dictate what everyone should believe. The elites will find out that there are still too many people who are not cheese eating surrender monkey's

Thanks Tedford for further confirming the rest of the world's opinion that Americans are arrogant clueless morons.

On a darker note, here's what happens to societies that give up their scientific literacy and the associated technical competence by electing scientifically ignorant leaders:

Neal Tedford: "It's like a litmus test question to filter out folks that "cling to guns and religion" from the elites. The elites who cling to climate change and evolutionary junk science"

I love how conservatives use 'elite' as a slur. It's adorable.

Pastor Tedford is cut from the same cloth as Rev. Ray Mummert, another pastor from Dover PA. Upon hearing about Tammy Kitzmiller's decision to go to court over the introduction of Creationism by the Dover school board, Mummert is on record as saying

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture"

The elites who proudly endorsed junk science are running the show and everyone is finding out that their policies don't work. So there will be a backlash against big government and big science trying to dictate what everyone should believe. The elites will find out that there are still too many people who are not cheese eating surrender monkey's.

Classic. But you forgot to mention the black helicopters of the UN. I used my contacts in Big Science to send a few to beam evil rays on your church.